CA61 Reformed Epistemology

We discuss Alvin Plantinga’s reformed epistemology, and ask whether belief in god is “properly basic.” We also discuss Cartesian skepticism, the notion of a divine sense or “sensus divinitatis,” and which beliefs should be considered properly basic. We also spend some time on the age-old question of “What is the difference between god and trees?” We discuss various types of trees, and which trees are the most reasonable to believe in, and why I don’t appear to have a sensus ghostatis. 
Contact me at or on Facebook 
Support on Patreon or give a one-time donation through Venmo (@emersongreenpodcast) 
CA42 The Argument From Personal Experience could be a supplement to this episode.
. . . . . 

To those of you who may be wondering why we’re covering Reformed epistemology: Alvin Plantinga is one of the most respected Christian philosophers alive. William Lane Craig described Reformed epistemology as “one of the most significant developments in contemporary religious epistemology.” Plantinga once served as the president of the American Philosophical Association. In 2017, he was awarded the Templeton Prize. The University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion renamed its Distinguished Scholar Fellowship as the Alvin Plantinga Fellowship. In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh’s Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science co-awarded Plantinga the Nicholas Rescher Prize for Systematic Philosophy. 

I’m trying to convey that Plantinga is a Sophisticated Apologist™ and is taken very seriously by the religious and non-religious alike. According to many apologists and theologians, he’s the best they have. We should take the time to attempt to debunk their best offerings. Even though these two episodes have been comparatively dense to the usual CA episode, I think it was worthwhile for many reasons. To quote Jerry Coyne, “I’m starting to realize that there is no sophisticated theology; there are merely evasions and fancy language to get around the problematic lack of evidence for God and the palpably immoral statements in scripture.”